J.K. Rowling and Guardian ‘Person of the Year’ award closed

if the guardian doesn't want to give an arbitrary title to someone they really don't have to. Their articles are generally against JKR, so it's not unexpected that they wouldn't want to give her that boost. Its just a twitter poll.

People brigade online polls like this all the time. Ever heard about the Taylor Swift fan poll that had some 40~ year old neckbeard win? Was brigaded by 4Chan, or something. 😂

Don't blame the Guardian, tbh. Was a mistake to begin with, welcome to the internet.

I haven't heard about this actually. Do you have a link to the story by any chance?


Why would we assume that this is a "brigaded" poll though? I think another possible conclusion to be drawn from this is that actually, quite a lot of people agree with the views she has expressed, and respect the fact that she's been so resolute in spite of those who have tried to punish and defame her for them or issue death threats etc.

Certainly, they aren't compelled to do anything. It's their award, they can do whatever they like with it.

However, what I find interesting is the fact that such a majority of people voted for JKR in the first place. Professionally speaking, I don't think she's done anything particularly special this year; nowadays she's probably best known for her views on gender and her steadfastness in standing by them. To me this indicates that the people who admire her for this probably far outnumber the people who criticise her for it; something that the Guardian would prefer people not to realise. If a poll like this was cancelled for any other reason, one would normally expect them to explain why.


I think it sheds a light on political correctness and cancel-culture in a wider sense as well. When we decide that some views are "publicly acceptable" to hold whilst others are not, we may only be creating the illusion that all good, upstanding citizens hold the acceptable views, whilst the contrary views are only held by the incel types who frequent 4chan. But when people can express their views privately or anonymously without fear of "cancellation" and other forms of backlash, we may find that the reverse is actually true. And then by suppressing this information, we perpetuate that illusion further. It's a very "Emperor's New Clothes / Elephant in the Room" sort of situation.

The fact that the Wizarding World franchise is now downplaying its links to JKR and the actors in its films are now publicly coming out to denounce her views is understandable; their livelihoods depend on protecting their brand image from harm. But perhaps none of this is actually necessary. Whilst they may think that they are receiving the support of the majority for doing so, perhaps it is really only a minority they are pandering to - albeit one which is empowered to be far more vocal.

if the guardian doesn't want to give an arbitrary title to someone they really don't have to. Their articles are generally against JKR, so it's not unexpected that they wouldn't want to give her that boost. Its just a twitter poll.

I don't think it's accurate that their articles have been anti-JKR, the ones I've read have all been trying to even handedly depict the different arguments and people involved. They have however been giving space to covering the anti views, which is different to the right wing media, who have only been projecting it as a "wokeist lynching" and therefore I can see how someone used to that might interpret what the Guardian has done as being "anti".

Have you ever used Twitter? 😂 I'm sure a lot of people agree and respect her opinion, I don't doubt that at all. What I am saying is that the poll either got brigaded or was heavily retweeted within pro-JK circles. In either case the result will be heavily biased, which will also happen due to the nature of the question itself.

i think it represents that shes trending on twitter right now and her new movie and tv shows are all coming out so a lot of people think its their job to personally defend her as she hypes up the nostalgia for their favorite childhood book series.
i have no idea what the statistics are for the support of trans people in the UK, but in the US support tends to be 30-60% depending on the issue. it's not always a majority but it is a large number of people. if they distance themselves from JKR the people who support trans people will be happy to engage with harry potter things, and those that don't support trans people will also be happy to engage because the money goes to JKR either way.

shouldn't make assumptions about something on The Guardian i assume you also haven't read and you're also using an unreliable, clearly biased source.

As far as my point is concerned, I don't think it really matters whether the source is unreliable or biased. My point is not to say "look how terrible the Guardian is for doing this". For the sake of argument, let's say I agree that for all I know, this story could be totally made up. And even if it isn't - as I said, the Guardian is perfectly entitled to give an award (or not give an award) to whomever it likes. (However if it is true I'd still say it's rather embarrassing on the Guardian's part).

My point is actually wider one about political correctness and cancel culture in general; namely that by making some views socially unacceptable to express in public and threatening consequences for those who do, we may just be driving those views underground and hiding them from public view more than anything else. This would give the false impression that most other people agree with the socially acceptable view - even if in fact many of them just feel like they have to play along, not realising that others are doing the same thing. That's why the story of the Emperor's New Clothes comes to mind.


Having said that, no matter how unreliable or biased you think this source is, it would surprise me if the story was completely made up, given that there are multiple sources reporting this (which can be revealed by a quick Google search).

it matters because i can't argue against your feelings; i can only argue against facts. that's why you need a reliable source otherwise you are creating a fictious story for all i know.

This post makes it sound like you didn't read beyond my first sentence...

See again the below:
"My point is not to say "look how terrible the Guardian is for doing this". For the sake of argument, let's say I agree that for all I know, this story could be totally made up. And even if it isn't - as I said, the Guardian is perfectly entitled to give an award (or not give an award) to whomever it likes. (However if it is true I'd still say it's rather embarrassing on the Guardian's part).

My point is actually wider one about political correctness and cancel culture in general; namely that by making some views socially unacceptable to express in public and threatening consequences for those who do, we may just be driving those views underground and hiding them from public view more than anything else. This would give the false impression that most other people agree with the socially acceptable view - even if in fact many of them just feel like they have to play along, not realising that others are doing the same thing. That's why the story of the Emperor's New Clothes comes to mind."



By the way - why exactly do you think this source is unreliable, and telling a fictitious story?

because that's not journalism. it's unreliable.